Guided Reading Course

5. The Authority and Canon of Scripture - 27 October 2011

Introduction

Having considered the theme of natural revelation (God’s revelation in the created world) last week, we continue our study of the doctrine of revelation in this session with special revelation (God’s revelation in Scripture). In particular, we’re thinking about the divine inspiration of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, and the canon of Scripture (i.e. the question of which books belong in this Bible and why.

We’ll be reading two texts: a portion of Calvin’s Institutes (I.vii-ix), and an essay by Douglas Wilson entitled “Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority,” pp. 255–286 in Keith A. Mathison (ed.), When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed response to hyper-preterism (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004).

Both Calvin and Wilson write within a confessionally Reformed framework, though of course in very different contexts. Calvin develops the theme of the necessity of Scripture and discusses how its authority may rightly be established, while Wilson addresses some problems that may arise from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone).

Wilson’s essay comes from a collection of essays addressing a heretical doctrine known as hyper-preterism, which is almost unknown outside one tiny sector of the North American church. This isn’t why we’re looking at the essay, so don’t worry if you can’t follow the details. To help you understand what he’s talking about, I’ve included a short introductory note below explaining what hyper-preterism is. But you don’t need to understand this issue in order to address the study questions below.

Outline

Questions for reflection
Calvin, Institutes, I.vii.ix
A (very) brief introduction to hyper-preterism
Wilson, “Sola Scriptura”

Questions for reflection

Think about these questions before your start reading. Try to identify what you really think about these questions, not what you think you ought to think.

i. Why do you believe that Scripture the inspired and authoritative word of God?

ii. Why do you believe that the 66 books of the Bible are exactly what ought to be there – no more and no less?

If you’re pushed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, I.vii-ix (1:69-96)

1. What, precisely, is the nature of the “pernicious error” that Calvin identifies in I.vii.1?

2. How does Calvin respond to this error in I.vii.2?

For reflection: Take a closer look at Ephesians 2:20, the text Calvin cites in I.vii.2, and also at Ephesians 3:5. Do you think Ephesians 2:20 supports Calvin’s argument here? Why or why not?

In I.vii.3, Calvin discusses Augustine’s controversial statement, “I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the catholic church” (cited by Calvin on p. 76, footnote 6). Calvin argues that Augustine did not mean by this what the medieval Catholic church claimed that he meant.

*3. How has “that statement of Augustine” been misinterpreted by Calvin’s opponents (I.vii.3; cf. footnote 6)? How, in Calvin’s view, should Augustine be understood here (I.vii.3)?

4. According to Calvin, what is “the highest proof of Scripture” (I.vii.4)? How does Calvin expand on this in I.vii.5)? Do you agree with Calvin here?

For reflection: If Calvin’s argument here is correct, how should we seek to persuade unbelievers that Scripture is God’s authoritative word?

5. How significant, in Calvin’s view, are the arguments for the authority of Scripture outlined in I.viii? In what context are they significant?

6. Can you identify and summarise the following arguments for the credibility of Scripture, outlined in I.viii:

The content of Scripture (I.viii.2)
The great antiquity of Scripture (I.viii.3)
The miracles described in Scripture (I.viii.5-6)
The prophecies of Scripture (I.viii.7-8)
The character of the New Testament (I.viii.11)
The testimony of the church (I.viii.12)
The testimony of the martyrs (I.viii.13)

For reflection: Which of these arguments do you find most persuasive? Which do you find least persuasive?

7. What is the error of the “giddy men” whom Calvin criticises in I.ix.1? How does Calvin respond?

*8. How do the texts alluded to in I.ix.2 support Calvin’s argument?

9. In what ways does Calvin express the relationship between God’s word and the ministry of the Spirit? (I.ix.3)

Study questions on Douglas Wilson, “Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority”

Douglas Wilson’s essay is one chapter of a longer book about a strange heresy called “Hyper-preterism.” You don’t need to understand much at all about this view to answer the study questions below, so please don’t worry if you’ve never heard of it before. The reason we’re reading it is that Wilson’s critique of hyper-preterism involves some helpful observations about the canon of Scripture, and this is the subject we’re really interested in. However, just to put you in the picture, here’s a brief introduction to hyper-preterism.

“Hyper-preterism,” which is sometimes called “full preterism” or (by its advocates) “consistent preterism,” is the view that all of the future-oriented texts in the Bible have now been fulfilled. All the events prophesied in the Bible, they claim, have now happened. Consequently, hyper-preterists believe that the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment and so on have all taken place – probably at or around AD 70, when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed by the Romans. Hyper-preterism is therefore heretical, since it denies the orthodox doctrines of the future bodily resurrection of believers, the final judgment, and so on.

Hyper-preterism must be carefully distinguished from “preterism,” sometimes called “partial preterism,” which states that some, but not all, of the future-oriented texts in the Bible have now been fulfilled. All of us are preterists on some texts (like Isaiah 53, for example), but not on others (such as the promise of the general resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:50-55). The big questions arise with texts like Mark 13:1-31 – some people think this refers to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, while others argue that it is about the last judgment. A “preterist” interpretation of this text is one that locates its fulfilment in the past. Evangelical scholar R. T. France argues in favour of such an interpretation in his commentary on Mark’s Gospel. The important things to remember are (1) that preterism is fine on some texts – indeed, all of us are preterists on some texts; but (2) only a hyper-preterist would make the heretical claim that the general resurrection of last judgment have already happened.

For more on this subject, see http://northlondonchurch.org/2009/07/25/what-is-preterism/ and http://northlondonchurch.org/2009/06/03/objections-to-preterism/

Now let’s turn to Wilson’s essay. As you’ll see, he begins with a discussion of hyper-preterism, but quickly moves to the underlying issue of the canon of Scripture. It’s this latter issue that we’re interested in. However, there’s quite a lot in the essay that doesn’t concern us directly, so don’t be afraid to skip over the parts not addressed directly by the study questions. And feel free to omit the question marked with a *.

10. What, in Wilson’s view, is “the fundamental question” (p. 256) to be addressed? Why is this question important (p. 257)?

11. Why can’t a hyper-preterist simply appeal to Scripture to support his rejection of what the creeds say about the future (p. 258; cf. p. 265)?

12. Why does Wilson think that the tradition of the church is an especially significant argument against hyper-preterism (p. 259)?

For reflection: Do you agree with the argument Wilson outlines here? Why or why not?

13. In what way(s) do hyper-preterists misunderstand the doctrine of sola Scriptura (p. 260-262)? Why is this significant?

14. “Before we come to the word of God in Genesis 1:1, we come to the word of the church in the table of contents” (p. 265). What do you think of this statement?

*15. “The positions adopted within modern evangelicalism actually are the same as Rome’s teaching” (p. 279). What does Wilson mean by this? Do you agree?

4. The Knowledge of God - 19 October 2011

Introduction

The reading for session 4 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course takes us to the beginning of Calvin’s Institutes, and to the well-known section on the subject of the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves (John Calvin, Institutes, I.i-vi [1:35-74]). It’s worth paying close attention to the development of the argument in this portion of Calvin’s work (especially chapters i-iv and vi) in order to grasp fully what Calvin is saying, both because it lays some important foundations for what follows, and also because some contemporary scholars have misread Calvin at this point.

Here, just remind you, are a couple of examples of the format for references in Calvin’s work:

I.ii.3 means book I, chapter ii, section 3.
I.iii means book I, chapter iii.

Finally, if you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Outline

Introduction
Questions for reflection
Calvin, Institutes, I.i-vi

Questions for reflection

i. Read Psalm 19. What do vv. 1-6 tell us about how we can find out about God? Why do you think vv. 7-11 are included at this point in the Psalm?

ii. Read Romans 1:18-32. According to these verses, what has God revealed about himself in the creation? What do we naturally tend to do with this knowledge?

Study questions

In I.i (book I, chapter i), Calvin explains how the knowledge of God is related to the knowledge of ourselves.

1. “No one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God” (I.i.1). Why not? According to Calvin, what particular aspects of the world lead us to contemplate God?

2. “Man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face” (I.i.2). What does Calvin mean by this? What examples does he give?

In I.i.3, Calvin discusses some important biblical evidence to support the point made in the previous section, namely that “Man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face” (I.i.2).

3. What biblical evidence does Calvin provide in I.i.3 to support the point made in the previous section?

In I.ii, Calvin discusses in more detail what he means by “the knowledge of God,” the nature of such knowledge, and so on.

4. What does Calvin mean by “the knowledge of God” in I.ii.1? What kind of response to God should such knowledge involve (I.ii.1-2)?

In I.iii, Calvin explains and seeks to prove that there is in the natural human mind “an awareness of divinity.”

5. What evidence does Calvin give in I.iii.1 that “there is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity”?

For reflection: What do you think of the evidence that Calvin gives here? Are you persuaded? Why or why not?

6. What would Calvin say to someone who thought that “religion was invented” by men as an instrument of power (I.iii.2)?

For reflection: Where do you think Calvin would say that the various different religions of the world come from?

I.iv is a crucial portion of this part of Calvin’s Institutes, for it explains what men and women do with the knowledge of God which has been implanted within us.

7. How do human beings naturally respond to the “seed of religion” implanted within them (I.iv.1)?

8. What would Calvin say to people who thought that “zeal for religion … is sufficient” (I.iv.3)?

For reflection: How would Calvin respond to the claim that some non-Christians are genuinely seeking to worship and serve the true God?

For reflection: What implications does Calvin’s argument have for contemporary evangelism?

9. In I.iv.4, Calvin discusses “a second sin.” What is this sin, and how (according to Calvin) do people commit it?

For reflection: How does Calvin’s argument so far (I.i-iv) fit with what Paul says in Romans 1:18–32?

In I.v Calvin covers in more detail some of the themes he has already discussed in the previous chapters. I suggest you move more quickly through this chapter, though you may find it helpful to look at the sections highlighted in questions 10 and 11.

*10. In what particular ways does God make himself known to humanity (I.v.1-2)?

*11. How do we naturally respond to what God has revealed to us (I.v.4-5, 9-13)?

*12. What important points does Calvin make as he summarises his argument in I.v.14-15?

13. What has God done in order “to direct us aright” to him (I.vi.1)? What, precisely, is the nature of the knowledge of God that Calvin is discussing here (I.vi.1-2)?

14. How should God’s revelation in Scripture affect how believers look at and understand the world around us (I.vi.3-4)?

Making a bad situation worse - 19 October 2011

The last couple of exercises in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course have mentioned the answer to question 151 of the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC). Here’s the relevant question and answer in full:

WLC Question 151: What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?

Answer: Sins receive their aggravations,

1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.

2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.

3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.

4. From circumstances of time, and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

Bad boy Saul - 19 October 2011

Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the third tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Write an ethical commentary on the life of Saul as presented in 1 Samuel 9-31, drawing particular attention to the following:

(a) ways in which John Frame’s “perspectives” (normative, situational, existential) draw attention to moral defects in Saul’s actions;

(b) examples of ethical “aggravations” discussed in the answer to question 151 in the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC 151).

Note: As before, I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Bullet points or something very conversational in style (perhaps akin to a blog post) is fine. Try to distribute the 4 hours reasonably evenly across the whole of this narrative of Saul’s life. About 10 minutes per chapter would get you through the whole lot with a few minutes to spare.

Ethical aggravations - 18 October 2011

Here are the questions following the second tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. How could each of the following actions be rendered sinful by a defect in each of the three perspectives (normative, situational, existential)?

a. Helping an old lady across the road.

b. Preaching a sermon.

c. Getting married.

d. Remaining single.

e. Going to church.

f. Reading a book on Christian ethics.

2. Analyse the answer to WLC 151, explaining how each of the “aggravations” mentioned could be viewed from one of Frame’s three perspectives. (You will probably find it helpful to group the aggravations into categories for this purpose, rather than discussing each one individually.)

3. Find biblical examples of each of the “aggravations” mentioned in the answer to WLC 151. (Please do not look at the WLC proof texts; do not use Bible software or a concordance for any purpose other than to find biblical references that you can already remember; and do not use Google at all. This is an exercise in thinking carefully about the Bible, not in whether you can type and use a dictionary.)

Suggested time allocation: 45-60 minutes for question 1; about 30 minutes for question 2; and the rest of the 4 hours or so for question 3.

3. Prayer - 12 October 2011

Introduction

This is the third of the three introductory sessions to the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, which are together designed to pave the way for the programme of theological study that follows. Here’s an outline of the first three weeks:

Session 1: Approaching theological study

Session 2: Godliness and theological study

Session 3: Prayer

The reading for week 3 is from Calvin’s Institutes, III.xx, on the subject of prayer – arguably one of the most profound and thought-provoking pieces of writing on this subject within the Reformed tradition.

This is quite a long chapter, so please don’t worry if you don’t have time to finish it all. I suggest that you focus your attention on the first part of the chapter, up to section 33 (p. 897). Don’t worry so much about the exposition of the Lord’s Prayer from sections 34 to 49 – it’s great stuff, but we can’t do everything. That gives you a lot fewer pages to read, which should be more manageable. I’ve marked with an asterisk * the questions not to focus on.

Outline

Introduction
Questions for reflection
Calvin, Institutes, III.xx

Questions for reflection

Before you begin reading, consider the following questions:

i. What teaching (from sermons, books, wherever) have you encountered in recent years on the subject of prayer?

ii. How and when do you pray?

iii. What aspects of your prayer life are you most happy with, and which are you most dissatisfied with?

Study questions

1. How does Calvin seek to persuade us of the importance of prayer (III.xx.1-2)?

2. How would Calvin respond to the claim that prayer is superfluous since God already knows what we need (III.xx.3)? What do you think of his counter-arguments?

3. What would Calvin say to a believer who found it hard to concentrate during prayer (III.xx.5)? Have you ever found this yourself? Do you find his advice helpful?

4. Why, in Calvin’s view, must prayer be accompanied by “an earnest—nay, burning—desire to attain” what we pray for (III.xx.6)? Do you ever neglect prayer because you don’t feel any immediate or pressing need to pray?

5. Why is prayer for forgiveness so important (III.xx.8-9)?

6. Should we be sure that God will answer our prayers? Why or why not (III.xx.11-14)?

7. How does God regard imperfect prayers? Why (III.xx.15-16)?

8. What does it mean to pray in Jesus’ name? Why is this so important (III.xx.17-19)?

9. Why is it wrong to seek the intercession of the saints (III.xx.21, 27)?

10. What dangers should we be alert for in public prayer? What steps should we take to avoid them (III.xx.29)?

11. What does Calvin think about singing (III.xx.31-32)? Do you agree?

12. Why should prayer be “in the language of the people” (III.xx.33)?

*13. Why is the Lord’s Prayer useful (III.xx.34)?

*14. How, according to Calvin, is the Lord’s Prayer structured (III.xx.35)?

*15. What is the significance of addressing God as “our Father in heaven” (III.xx.36-39)?

*16. What does “hallowed be your name” mean? Why is this petition important (III.xx.41)?

*17. How does Calvin understand God’s “kingdom”? What should be our priority in praying “your kingdom come” (III.xx.42)? How is this related to the following petition, “Your will be done” (III.xx.43)? Do these priorities shape your prayers?

*18. What does it mean to pray for our “daily bread”? What attitude should underlie this petition (III.xx.44)? Do you find it easy to maintain such an attitude at all times?

*19. How, in Calvin’s view, are the fifth and sixth petitions related to Jeremiah 31 (III.xx.45-46)?

*20. What does it mean to “forgive our debtors” (III.xx.45)? Have you done this?

*21. How should we envisage that God will answer the sixth petition (III.xx.46)?

*22. “This prayer is in all respects so perfect that any extraneous or alien thing added to it, which cannot be related to it, is impious and unworthy to be approved by God” (III.xx.48; cf. III.xx.49). What does Calvin mean by this? Do you agree?

23. What do you make of Calvin’s practical advice about times of prayer (III.xx.50)?

24. What does Calvin advise in order that “we shall easily learn to persevere in prayer” (III.xx.51)? How is this related to Calvin’s advice in the case of unanswered prayer (III.xx.52)?

25. What aspects of Calvin’s teaching on prayer have challenged you most strongly? Are you planning to introduce any changes to your habits of prayer?

Introduction to Christian Ethics - 12 October 2011

Last week saw the launch of an entirely new course on the Guided Reading Course – Introduction to Christian Ethics. More details will follow in future weeks. In the meantime, just to whet your appetite, here’s the first assignment, due in at the second tutorial today, Wednesday 12 October.

1. Make the appropriate distinctions and clarifications necessary to explain what is right and what is wrong with the following statements:

a. Sunday School lessons should have a single, simple, clear application.

b. God’s Spirit already indwells all Christians, so it makes no sense for a congregation to ask God to pour out his Spirit upon us.

2. Choose any sin described in a narrative portion of the Bible, and explain how this sin is a violation of each one of the Ten Commandments.

3. Explain briefly what light is shed on the following problems by each of the three “perspectives” on ethics: situational, normative, existential. (You may find that the three perspectives do not contribute equally to every situation – that’s fine.)

a. At what age should a child be given alcoholic wine at the Lord’s Supper?

b. At what age should a parent give a child alcoholic wine at family meals?

c. A Police Officer, who is required to work two weekends every five, is converted to Christ. Should he quit his job?

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Something more conversational in style, or perhaps akin to a blog post, is fine. If you find it easier to write brief notes rather than continuous prose, that’s fine too. Aim to spend around 4 hours in total, and spread your time reasonably evenly across the different questions.

Introduction to Christian Ethics - 5 October 2011

Last week saw the launch of an entirely new course on the Guided Reading Course – Introduction to Christian Ethics. More details to follow in future weeks. In the meantime, just to whet your appetite, here’s the first assignment, due in at the second tutorial today, Wednesday 12 October.

1. Make the appropriate distinctions and clarifications necessary to explain what is right and what is wrong with the following statements:

a. Sunday School lessons should have a single, simple, clear application.

b. God’s Spirit already indwells all Christians, so it makes no sense for a congregation to ask God to pour out his Spirit upon us.

2. Choose any sin described in a narrative portion of the Bible, and explain how this sin is a violation of each one of the Ten Commandments.

a. At what age should a child be given alcoholic wine at the Lord’s Supper?

b. At what age should a parent give a child alcoholic wine at family meals?

c. A Police Officer, who is required to work two weekends every five, is converted to Christ. Should he quit his job?

22. Biblical overview (2) - 5 October 2011

Introduction

We’re continuing in session 22 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course with our study of the doctrine of salvation (soteriology), looking at the next section of Peter J. Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), pp. 129-214.

You will recall from the previous session that this part of the course is deliberately structured to help you see how a Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges from a systematic reading of the whole Bible, taking into account the progressive character of God’s revelation to humanity and the coherence and interconnectedness of the Scriptures. Here’s a reminder of where we’re going in the next few sessions:

Biblical overview. An overview of the whole Bible, attempting to piece together a few of the countless themes that trace the story of God’s saving work through the Scriptures from beginning to end. We’ll also look in some detail at biblical imagery and biblical typology with the help of Peter J. Leithart’s A House for My Name.

Covenant theology. Historically, Reformed theologians have integrated the apparently diverse strands of the Bible’s story by tracing the theme of God’s covenants with man. We’ll be doing the same thing with the help of O. Palmer Roberson’s book The Christ of the Covenants, as we make the step from biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology.

Systematic soteriology. The Reformed didn’t stop with covenant theology, and neither shall we. Rather, we’ll see how a robust Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges naturally and organically from covenant theology as we return to John Calvin’s Institutes to consider such familiar topics as election, the offices of Christ, the atonement, repentance, faith and justification, all within the framework of the central doctrine of union with Christ.

As before, you’re unlikely to have time to reflect in detail on everything in this section of Leithart’s book. I therefore suggest that you don’t try. Instead, approach the questions like this: (1) Read a chapter through; (2) Look at the questions for that chapter, and reflect on a few of them as your mood takes you; (3) Move on to the next chapter.

You’ll benefit more from this book if you look at a few questions in detail than if you look at lots of questions superficially. So don’t worry if you don’t complete all the questions. In particular, if you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *. You may also find it helpful to look at Leithart’s questions scattered throughout each chapter. And, of course, keep your Bible open.

Outline

Recap: Biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology
Leithart, A House for My Name

Questions for reflection

i. What do the following passages have in common: Genesis 3:15; Judges 9:53; 1 Samuel 17:49; Psalm 74:14; John 19:2?

Study questions

1. What parallels does Leithart identify between the capture of the ark by the Philistines (1 Samuel 3-6) and Israel’s exodus from Egypt (pp. 129-130)? What “important difference” does he highlight (p. 130)? What according to Leithart, is this difference “a picture of” (p. 130)?

For reflection: What do you think of the parallel Leithart draws between this OT narrative and the work of Christ? If Leithart is right, what implications would this have for how you read the Bible?

2. What is sinful about Israel’s request for a king in 1 Samuel 8 (pp. 133-134)? How does the LORD respond to Israel’s request (pp. 134-135)?

3. In what ways does Saul initially appear to be “an ideal choice to lead and judge Israel” (pp. 136-137)?

4. “In 1 Samuel 13-15, Saul commits three sins” (p. 137). What are these three sins (pp. 137-140)? How are they related to the “three areas” of the earth: “garden, land, and world” (p. 139)? What is significant about this (pp. 139-140)?

*5. As Saul goes to meeting Samuel, he meets some women at a well (1 Samuel 9:11-13). How is this occasion similar to the scenes in Genesis 24, Genesis 29 and John 4? How is it different? Why is this significant?

6. “Goliath wears ‘scale armour,’ dressing himself like a serpent (1 Samuel 17:15)” (p. 142). Why is this significant? (You might find it helpful to consider you answer to question i, above.)

7. In what ways are God’s promises to David (1 Samuel 7) similar to the promises he made to Abraham (pp. 148-149)? In what ways are they different?

For reflection: How does this help us to understand the overall “shape” of God’s saving purposes for the world?

8. “Solomon has moved beyond Adam, and God allows him, as it were, to eat from the tree of knowledge” (p. 154). What does Leithart mean by this? Do you agree?

9. In what ways is Solomon’s temple different from the Mosaic tabernacle (pp. 155-156)? Why is this significant?

*10. Why is the episode of the two prostitutes placed at this particular point in the narrative (1 Kings 3:16-28)?

11. “Elijah … follows closely in the footsteps of Moses” (p. 169). How (pp. 169-172)?

12. “Two things help to explain why Jonah flees to Tarshish rather than going to Nineveh” (p. 180). What are these two things (pp. 180-182)?

*13. “Just as Jonah is thrown into the heart of the sea, so Israel will be flooded by the Gentile nations … Converts in Nineveh will be like the fish, rescuing Israel from drowning in the Assyrian sea” (p. 185). What does Leithart mean by this? Do you agree?

1. Approaching theological study - 27 September 2011

Welcome to the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course! A particular welcome to the seven students who have signed up for the new course beginning in October 2011. All the questions will be contained in the “Guided Reading Course, Class of 2011″ blog category, and can be accessed easily from the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course section of the website.

We’re beginning the course with three introductory sessions designed to pave the way for the programme of theological study that follows. Here’s an outline of the first three weeks:

Session 1: Approaching theological study

Session 2: Godliness and theological study

Session 3: Prayer

As you know, you’ll be given around four hours of reading accompanied by study questions before most of the tutorials. The first tutorial, however, is a little different. On this occasion we’ll be thinking more broadly about how to approach the reading during the rest of the Course. Nonetheless, there is some reading to be done before the tutorial.

The main material to read is Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962). (I believe Thielicke’s name is pronounced “tea-licker.” Seriously.) Some of Thielicke’s language is a little complicated, but the basic message is pretty clear, and it’s extremely important for all students of theology.

If you find some sections hard to follow, don’t worry – just skip over them at the stage. We can look in more detail at the important parts during the tutorial. Importantly, let the study questions (below) be your guide. In other words, let them guide you towards those parts of the book where your attention should be focussed, and don’t worry so much about other parts, especially if you find them tricky to understand. The questions focus on chapters 3-6, 8 and 13.

Finally, please remember to bring the following things with you to the tutorial: this handout, Thielicke’s book, a Bible, any other handouts that have been supplied, and something (laptop, notebook, paper, etc.) to make notes with.

Outline

Here’s an outline of what we’ll be doing in the first tutorial. The handout for the final section (Logical Fallacies) will be provided at the tutorial (by email for Skype students). We’ll go through it together.

Welcome; introductions; housekeeping
What to read and how to read
Thielicke, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians
Handout: “Logical Fallacies: How Not to Think”

Questions for reflection

Before you begin reading, consider the following questions:

i. Which of the following sins are most likely to result from studying theology? Why?

“For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:21-23)

“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy,drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21)

ii. Are there any sins listed here that you feel personally tempted to?

Study questions

1. What happens to the “lively, active young man … when he comes home after his first semester” of theological study (pp. 6-7)?

2. “There is a hiatus [gap] between the arena of the young theologian’s actual spiritual growth and what he actually knows intellectually about this arena” (p. 10). Can you explain the problem that Thielicke is talking about here? What do you think of the illustrations Thielicke uses elsewhere in this chapter?

3. Describe the scene Thielicke depicts in chapter 3 (pp. 13-15). Have you ever witnessed anything like this?

For reflection: How do you feel as you read this section?

4. “Theology makes the young theologian vain and so kindles in him something like gnostic pride. The chief reason for this is that in us men love and truth are seldom combined” (p. 16). How does Thielicke illustrate and explain this in the rest of chapter 6?

For reflection: How might the student have responded to his landlord if love and truth had been combined?

5. “The church has the prior right to question us, even if it does not and cannot understand the details of our work” (p. 25). Why?

For reflection: How could you let people at your church “question” you about what you believe if they can’t understand some of the things you say?

6. “A person who pursues theological study is spiritually sick unless he reads the Bible uncommonly often” (p. 40). How much time do you intend to devote to the prayerful study of Scripture during your time on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course?

Last orders - 31 August 2011

The current first-year students on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course are just about to embark on the next exciting adventure, which reminds me that there’s still time to sign up to the next course, scheduled to begin in October 2011.

Check out the course overview, the syllabus, and the book lists. You can also read some feedback from current students.

To apply, go here, then get in touch.

From biblical theology to systematic soteriology - 31 August 2011

Session 21 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course marks the beginning of a new area of study. Having completed our consideration of the doctrine of the incarnation, we’re beginning our next major subject: the doctrine of salvation, or soteriology.

We’ll begin with Peter J. Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), pp. 13-128.

This part of the course is deliberately structured to help you see how a Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges from a systematic reading of the whole Bible, taking into account the progressive character of God’s revelation to humanity and the coherence and interconnectedness of the Scriptures. It may be helpful to give a brief overview of where we’re going in the next few sessions:

We begin, then, with Peter Leithart’s superb little book A House for My Name. Before you begin reading, consider the following questions:

i. What do Genesis 3:19; Ezekiel 44:18 and Luke 22:44 have in common? Try to tell the story of human history with reference to only these three texts.

ii. What does Genesis 3:24 have to do with Genesis 22:6? What was Isaac thinking of when he looked at his Dad?

iii. What light does Genesis 3:18 shed upon Matthew 27:29?

iv. How would you respond to someone who thought that the texts cited in the previous questions were completely unrelated to one another?

Introduction (pp. 17-42)

The introduction to Leithart’s book is well worth reading, though we won’t spend much time on it during the tutorial. At times it feels a little technical, so here’s a rough outline to guide you on your way:

Leithart outlines two main mistakes in reading the Old Testament:

(1) Liberalism and Marcionism consign the Old Testament to irrelevance. Alarmingly, some contemporary evangelicals look little different in certain respects (pp. 17-21).

(2) Antisupercessionism, exemplified by Kenneth Soulen, claims that ethnic Israelites are still in covenant with God irrespective of their response to Jesus (pp. 21-26).

To read the Old Testament as Christians, we must get beyond the so-called “grammatical-historical” method of exegesis, which, though fine (indeed, necessary) as far as it goes, doesn’t go far enough. In particular, it fails to place sufficient weight upon the recurring types and images of Scripture, and upon the storyline of the whole (pp. 27-40).

The rest of the book is a whirlwind tour of the Bible, highlighting many of the themes, storylines, images and types that give coherence and meaning to the whole. The following questions are designed to encourage you to reflect upon some of the themes Leithart identifies, and to work out whether you agree with the direction in which Leithart takes them.

You probably won’t have time to reflect in detail on everything in these chapters, and I suggest you don’t try. Instead, try this: (1) read a chapter through; (2) Look at the questions for that chapter, and reflect on a few of them as your mood takes you; (3) Move on to the next chapter.

One more word of advice: You’ll benefit more from this book if you look at a few questions in detail than if you look at lots of questions superficially. So don’t worry if you don’t complete all the questions. You may also find it helpful to look at Leithart’s questions scattered throughout each chapter. Keep your Bible open as you read this book, and read them both with imagination and energy. You never know what you might discover.

Chapter 1: Book of Beginnings

1. How is the world like a three-storey house (pp. 43-45)? How does this help us to understand the ten plagues on Egypt (pp. 47-48)?

2. “Very often the land pictures Israel and the sea pictures the nations” (p. 48). Are you persuaded? Can you think of any other biblical texts upon which this claim might shed light?

3. Can you explain what Leithart means by the three-fold structure of the earth: “the Garden, the land of Eden, and the larger world” (p. 52)? How does this relate to the three “falls” described on p. 56?

4. “Throughout Genesis, the patriarchs … meet their wives by wells in oases” (p. 54). What light does this shed on John 4?

5. “Joseph is a picture of what Adam is supposed to become” (p. 64). How (see also p. 65)? Do you agree?

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt I Have Called My Son

6. Outline Leithart’s exposition of Genesis 31:33-35 (pp. 71-72). Are you persuaded by his reading? Why or why not? Could his reading be taken further? If so, what does this passage contribute to a critique of idolatry that could not easily have been contributed any other way?

7. Why does Exodus 1:7 use so many words to say so little (p. 74)? What about Exodus 1:13-14 (p. 74)?

8. How is Exodus 20-24 like a marriage feast (pp. 78-80)?

9. Is what ways does the three-part structure of the tabernacle reflect the structure of the universe and the structure of the earth (pp. 82-86)?

10. What do the terms qorban and “bread of God” tell us about the significance of Israel’s sacrifices (pp. 87-88)?

11. “Jesus is always eating fish” (p. 88). Why?

Chapter 3: From Sinai to Shiloh

12. “The big sin of Israel comes … when Israel arrives at Kadesh” (p. 103). What is this “big sin,” and how is it related to previous events recorded in Scripture?

13. Instead of organising the army, Joshua focuses on what the priests are going to do” (p. 110). Why is this significant (see also p. 111)? What implications might it have for the contemporary church?

14. What did Gideon do right? What did he do wrong (pp. 115-118)?

15. Why is Ruth 4:18-22 significant in the light of Genesis 38 and Deuteronomy 23:2?

Syllabus now online - 3 August 2011

A further page has been added to the Guided Reading Course section of the website: an outline of the course syllabus. Click here or see below.

Introduction	How to read; introductory logic; godliness in the Christian life; prayer.
Revelation	General revelation; special revelation; the canon of Scripture.
God	Images and idolatry; names of God; essence and attributes of God; divine simplicity; the Trinity.
Creation	Creation of man; the image of God; God’s creation purpose.
Sin	The fall; original sin; the bondage of the will; the corruption of human nature.
Christ	The purpose of the incarnation; Christology from the NT to Chalcedon (AD 451); Christological heresies; later Christological developments.
Redemption	Biblical themes and imagery; from biblical theology to covenant theology; critique of dispensationalism; election; the offices of Christ, the atonement; union with Christ; repentance and faith; justification; justification and the law in Galatians.
The church	The church as the body of Christ; church and society; baptism; the Lord’s Supper; church and state.
Eschatology	The Day of the Lord; the renewal of creation; continuity and discontinuity; glory; hell; millennial views.

Queueing round the block - 2 August 2011

The newly-revamped Emmanuel Guided Reading Course section of the website has just been tweaked again, this time with the addition of some more feedback from another of our current students. They’re queueing round the block to say nice things, which is… well… nice.

Applications are now open for the new course, beginning in October 2011. More information here.

Guided Reading Course – apply now! - 26 July 2011

The next class of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course is scheduled to start in October 2011, just a few months away. So now is the time to get thinking about whether you want to sign up. Blog, tweet and share the love.

To celebrate, the Guided Reading Course section of the website has had a minor facelift. Beautiful. Head on over and check it out.

Edited highlights - 20 July 2011

Here are a few bits and pieces from today’s Guided Reading Course tutorial (on Athanasius’ great work On the Incarnation), which involved one of the group participating via Skype.

FWIW, the Skype thing worked very well, so if you’re wanting to take part but worried that you live too far away, well, you don’t.

1. Three tasks for post-fall humanity, all accomplished in Christ:

Sin – atonement
PURITY

Evil – conquest
FREEDOM

Immaturity – growth
GLORY

2. Athanasius on the de-creative effects of sin

The world as created:

God (Father)
Man (Son)
Woman (Spirit-filled Bride, church)
Creation (world)

The corrupted world as fallen:

Creation (world)
Woman (Spirit-filled Bride, church)
Man (Son)
God (Father)

3. Athanasius’ dilemma

Compromise the truth of God’s WORD

Undermine the creative power of God’s WORD

God’s solution:

The incarnation of God’s WORD

‘Tis mystery all - 20 July 2011

Having introduced the subject of the incarnation in the previous session with Athanasius great work On the Incarnation, we turn in the next couple of sessions to consider the subject of the incarnation in more detail. This will at times involve us in some fairly complex philosophical discussion, especially in the next session. This week, in session 19, however, we begin with an overview of the subject from Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, (pp. 321-330), before looking at Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv (pp. 464-493).

Outline

Introductory questions
Berkhof
- Overview
- Christological errors
  - Reformed and Lutheran understandings of the communicato idiomatum
  - Kenotic Christology
  - Gradual incarnation
Calvin
- II.xii The necessity of the incarnation
- II.xiii The true humanity of Christ
- II.xiv The two natures of Christ in one person

Introductory questions

i. Do you recognise these lines? What, if anything, is wrong with them?

He left his Father’s throne above,
So free, so infinite his grace;
Emptied himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race.

ii. What do you think about these lines?

Amazing love! how can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me? …
‘Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!
Who can explore His strange design?

iii. What’s wrong with this statement: “Jesus’ human nature died on the cross, but not his divine nature”?

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 321-330

1. What observations does Berkhof make about the Christological declarations of the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 (p. 320)?

2. What is meant by the terms “nature” and person” in Christological discussion (p. 321)?

3. How many persons, and how many natures, are there in Christ (p. 322)? What biblical evidence does Berkhof cite to support this (fairly standard!) view (pp. 322-323)?

For reflection: Do these particular biblical texts support Berkhof’s point?

We now turn to the first significant Christological error discussed by Berkhof: the Lutheran (mis)understanding of the communication of the attributes (communicato idiomatum). In order to understand what (some of) the Lutherans got wrong, we must first consider what the Reformed got right.

4. What is meant by the term communicato idiomatum in Reformed theology (p. 324)? What must we “be careful not to understand the term to mean” (p. 324)? How does Lutheran theology get this wrong (p. 325-326)?

For reflection: Consider the consequences of this Lutheran mistake listed by Berkhof on pp. 326-327. Which do you think are most obviously fatal to the Lutheran view?

We now turn to the second significant Christological error discussed by Berkhof: the so-called “Kenotic theory” of the incarnation. (The important names here include P. T. Forsyth and Charles Gore.) Mercifully, this notion is not as popular among theologians as it once was, but the underlying ideas are still remarkably common, perhaps because they seem to make intuitive sense, and because they appear at first glance to resolve some of the supposed difficulties of the incarnation.

5. What key element lies at the heart of the Kenotic theory of the incarnation (p. 327)?

6. How might an advocate of Kenotic Christology defend his view from the following texts?

2 Corinthians 8:9
Philippians 2:5-8
John 17:5

7. What objections does Berkhof raise against Kenotic Christology (p. 328-329)?

Berkhof concludes the chapter with a brief discussion of Dorner’s “Theory of Gradual Incarnation,” which, though of some historical interest, is not now particularly prominent and will probably not occupy our attention during the tutorial.

Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv (1:464-493)

II.xii

8. Why, according to Calvin, did the mediator need to be true God and true man (II.xii.1-3)?

9. “Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator” (II.xii.1). Do you agree? Can you reconcile what Calvin says here with his comments at the start of II.xii.4 (see also II.xii.5)?

10. What does Calvin think of question 2, above? Why (II.xii.5)?

II.xiii

11. What evidence does Calvin adduce to prove Christ’s true humanity (II.xiii.1)?

12. What objection does Calvin address in II.xiii.4? How does he respond?

II.xiv

13. What misunderstanding of Christ’s human and divine natures does Calvin address in II.xiv.1? How does he correct this erroneous view? What analogy does he offer?

14. What does Calvin mean by “the communicating of properties” (II.xiv.1)? How do the scriptural texts cited in II.xiv.2 fit with this doctrine? How does Calvin’s view differ from the Lutheran doctrine (cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 324ff.)?

15. What, in Calvin’s view, is demonstrated by the texts cited in II.xiv.3? Do you agree?

16. What were the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches (II.xiv.4)? How does Calvin reply?

Athanasius contra mundum - 1 July 2011

In the next session in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, we’re starting to move towards Christology, which in turn will pave the way for the doctrine of salvation. To this end, we’ll be reading Athanasius, On the Incarnation, which sets the incarnation in the context of the de-creative effects of sin and our consequent need for renewal in the image of the Creator.

A further benefit of reading this work is that it exposes us to one of the greatest minds of the early church – a theological giant whose writing cannot be ignored by anyone serious about getting to grips with historic Christian thought. This week’s reading is slightly shorter than in some previous weeks, but don’t be deceived – though there are fewer words, they need to be chewed carefully.

On the Incarnation is available free online here, and hard copies will be provided for students formally enrolled on the Guided Reading Course. We won’t be reading the whole work – the questions focus on just the first five chapters, though I encourage you to read the sixth chapter if you have time.

Almost as good as Athanasius’ work (though not quite) is the introduction to the St Vladimir’s Seminary Press edition, written by C. S. Lewis. This, too, is available free online here. Well worth reading, though we probably won’t have time to discuss it at length during the tutorial.

If you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Chapter I

1. Why, according to Athanasius, was the Word of God “manifested in a human body” (section 1)?

2. What three “opinions” about “the making of the universe and the creation of all things” does Athanasius discuss in section 2? What do you make of his critique of these three views?

3. What does Athanasius believe would have happened to Adam and Eve if they had not sinned (section 3)? Do you agree? What biblical evidence might be relevant?

For reflection: Would the Word of God have become incarnate if man had not sinned? Why or why not? What do you think Athanasius would have said?

4. “The transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature” (section 4). What does Athanasius mean by this (see also section 5)? What explicit biblical support could Athanasius have adduced at this point?

5. “The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it” (section 4). Can you explain Athanasius’ argument here? (See also section 5.)

Chapter II

6. Can you explain clearly and precisely the nature of “the divine dilemma” (section 6)?

7. Why would repentance have been an inadequate remedy (section 7)?

For reflection: Can you think how this aspect of Athanasius’ argument might be helpful in apologetics and evangelism?

8. How did the incarnation solve “the divine dilemma” (section 8-9)?

For reflection: Athanasius returns to this point repeatedly in the following chapters, often in very thought-provoking ways. Make a note of them as you go along.

9. What place does the resurrection have in Athanasius’ explanation of the work of Christ (section 9; see also section 22)? Do you find this persuasive? What biblical data might be relevant?

10. “The solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which death has lost its power over all” (section 9). What do you think of Athanasius argument here?

11. What do you make of Athanasius’ use of biblical data in section 10?

Chapter III

*12. “When God the Almighty was making mankind,” what limitation did he perceive in them (section 11)? How did he resolve this (section 11)? How did man respond to this act of divine grace (section2 11-12)?

*13. What did God do “in face of this dehumanising of mankind” (section 13; cf. section 14)?

14. Why, according to Athanasius, was it so beneficial for us that God “became Himself an object for [our] senses” (section 15)? Do you agree with Athanasius here? Why or why not?

15. Why did Christ not “offer [his] sacrifice on behalf of all the moment he came” (section 16)?

16. What “paradox” does Athanasius discuss in sections 17-18?

Chapter IV

17. Can you identify the different reasons why, according to Athanasius, Jesus died a public rather than a private death (sections 21-25)?

*18. Do you agree with Athanasius that Christ’s body “did not see corruption” (section 21)? Why? What implications, if any, does this have for Jesus’ human nature?

19. On what basis does Athanasius conclude that there is “no excuse … for those who would divide the church” (section 24)? What do you think of his argument here?

20. What significance does Athanasius perceive in the outstretched arms of the crucified Christ, and in the fact that Jesus was “lifted up” on a cross (section 25)? How do you feel about exegesis like this?

If you have time, read chapter VI too, though we probably won’t have time to discuss it in the tutorial.

Cherish moderation - 16 June 2011

Having concluded our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects, we turn now in session 17 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course to the doctrine of providence. We’ll be looking at Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178 and Calvin’s Institutes, I.xvi-xviii (1:197-237). This is slightly more material than we’d usually try to cover, but you’ll be able to move quite quickly through the early sections of Calvin, as much of the material will have been covered in Berkhof.

A word of caution from Calvin before we begin: “We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us, but so reverence his secret judgments as to consider his will the truly just cause of all things” (Institutes, I.xvii.1).

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178

Section A discusses providence in general, in preparation for sections B to D (covering each of the “three elements in providence” and section E (covering miracles).

1. How does Berkhof define providence (p. 166)? Can you explain what is meant by each of the “three elements in providence” (p. 166)? Why might these distinctions be useful?

2. “While we distinguish three elements in providence, we should remember that these are never separated in the work of God” (p. 167). What does this mean?

3. What theological arguments (as distinct from arguments drawn from explicit biblical texts) could be used to oppose the three misconceptions Berkhof describes on pp. 167-168?

prescience (i.e. foreknowledge) or prescience plus foreordination;
the deistic view;
the pantheistic view.

Section B discusses preservation, the first element in providence.

4. How is the doctrine of preservation related to the doctrines of God and creation (p. 170)?

5. How does Berkhof describe the doctrine of “continuous creation” (p. 171)? What, in his view, is wrong with this position? Can you think of any other problems with it?

Section C discusses concurrence, the second element in providence.

6. What is wrong with illustrating the concurrence of divine and secondary causes as “a team of horses pulling together” (p. 172)?

7. How does Berkhof reply to the claim that his view of divine concurrence “makes God the responsible author of sin” (p. 174; cf. also p. 175)? Is his defence adequate?

Section D discusses government, the third element in providence.

8. What perspective upon providence does divine government emphasise? (p. 175)

Section E discusses miracles.

9. How might the “distinction … between providentia ordinaria and providentia extraordinaria [ordinary providence and extraordinary providence],” (p. 176) be useful in conversation with an atheist who believes miracles are impossible?

John Calvin, Institutes, I.xvi-xviii

I suggest that you move quite quickly through chapter xvi, since much of this material is covered well in Berkhof.

9. As you read through I.xvi, where in particular do you find themes which are echoed in Berkhof?

Chapter xvii is predominantly pastoral in character, being concerned with how we may apply the doctrine of divine providence to our greatest benefit. Accordingly, the intention of question 10 in particular is to encourage you to reflect in the pastoral implications of God’s providence.

10. What pastoral implications follow from the following observations? Can you think of practical situations in which these lessons might be particularly important?

“However hidden and fugitive from our point of view the causes may be, we must hold that they are surely laid up with him” (I.xvii.1).
“We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us” (I.xvii.1).
“He who has set the limits to our life has at the same time entrusted to us its care; he has provided means and helps to preserve it” (I.xvii.4).
“Then the heart will not doubt that God’s singular providence keeps watch to preserve it, and will not suffer anything to happen but what may turn out to its good and salvation” (I.xvii.6).

11. How does Calvin address the issue of God’s “repentance” (I.xvi.12-14)?

Chapter xviii addresses the vexed issue of God’s sovereignty over sinful actions. Here Calvin explains how God remains holy even when sovereignly upholding the sinful actions of the wicked.

12. Why, according to Calvin, do some adopt a “distinction … between doing and permitting”? What does Calvin think of this distinction? What biblical data does he adduce to support his view? (I.xviii.1)

13. How does Calvin believe God’s will is related to human actions (I.xviii.2)?

14. “But even though [God’s] will is one and simple in him, it appears manifold to us” (I.xviii.3). Why does Calvin feel it necessary to make this clarification? What does he mean by it?

15. What point does Augustine make in the lengthy quote with which Calvin believes “all godly and modest folk agree” (I.xviii.3)?

16. What point is proved by the example of “the choice of king Jeroboam” (I.xviii.4)?

17. What advice does Calvin have for “those for whom this seems harsh” (I.xviii.4)? Do you agree?

Take my life - 9 June 2011

We continue our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects in session 16 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, looking this week at Calvin, Institutes, II.iii-v (1:289-340). These chapters might be summarised as follows: the capacity of the fallen human will, and how God works in us to draw us to him (chapter iii); the sense in which God can be said to be involved in evil actions (chapter iv); and several arguments against his view of the human will (chapter v).

Before you begin, consider the following question: If our inherited corruption makes sin inevitable, how can God hold us responsible for it?

Chapter iii

1. What, according to Calvin, is meant by the Scriptural description of fallen man as “flesh” (II.iii.1)?

2. What biblical texts does Calvin cite in II.iii.1-2 to support his view of the depravity of human nature? In your view, do these texts adequately support Calvin’s point?

3. “Almost the same question that was previously answered now confronts us anew” (II.iii.3). What is this question, and how does Calvin answer it?

4. Calvin argues that fallen man sins “willingly, not unwillingly or by compulsion” (II.iii.5)? What does he mean by this? Why is it important?

5. Can you summarise how, according to Calvin, “divine grace corrects and cures the corruption of our nature” (II.iii.6)?

6. How does Lombard misrepresent Augustine’s statement that “grace precedes every good work” (II.iii.7)? What “two things” does Calvin emphasise in order to prevent this misunderstanding?

7. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin adduce in II.iii.8-9 to support his view that all good in us “takes its origin from God alone” (II.iii.8)?

8. What does Calvin believe Chrysostom means when he said, “Whom he draws he draws willingly?” (II.iii.10). Why does Calvin object to this notion (II.iii.10)? How does Calvin’s position differ from Chrysostom’s (II.iii.10)?

9. What “most wicked error” does Calvin describe in II.iii.11? How does he respond?

10. According to Calvin, what contrast does Augustine draw between Adam’s unfallen will and our redeemed will (II.iii.13)?

Chapter iv

In this chapter, Calvin addresses “the question whether we ought to ascribe to God any part of the evil works in which Scripture signifies that some action of his intervenes” (II.iv.1).

11. Can you explain the illustration Calvin cites from Augustine in II.iv.1? Does this strike you as a biblical way of thinking?

12. In what sense(s) are God, Satan and man all active participants in the same events (II.iii.2)? How do Calvin’s scriptural examples serve his point here (II.iv.4-5)?

Chapter v

In this chapter Calvin considers a number of objections against his understanding of the human will.

13. Please summarise (a) the objections set out in the following sections; and (b) Calvin’s response to them. Do you find Calvin’s responses persuasive?

II.v.1
II.v.2
II.v.3
II.v.4-5

14. Some of Calvin’s critics claim that “God’s precepts [are] so accommodated to our capacities that we are of necessity able to fulfil their demonstrable requirements” (II.v.6). What does this mean, and how does is serve as an argument against Calvin’s view? How does Calvin respond (II.v.6-11)?

15. Calvin considers a number of other arguments against his position in II.v.12-19. Try to outline these arguments and Calvin’s responses to them. Which position do you find most persuasive?

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Recent Sermons

Recent Blog Posts